Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Louisiana supports Supreme Court review of same-sex marriage

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

It's time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
It’s time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
SCOTUSBlog reports:

A second state — Louisiana — told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Justices should consider taking on the constitutional dispute over same-sex marriage without waiting further. It is important, the state said in urging prompt review of a federal judge’s decision upholding Louisiana’s ban on such marriages, that the Court examine the dispute in a broad context to reach all of the issues.

With the filing of Louisiana’s views, paralleling the suggestion for early review made by Michigan in another case, the Supreme Court now has two new cases nearly ready for early consideration, perhaps in time for a final decision before the end of the current Term. Other cases on the issue are pending, but if the Court waits for all of the filings to be submitted in all of the cases, that could slow the process.

If the Court does move now to review any of the new appeals, Louisiana — like Michigan — wants its own ban on same-sex marriages upheld, its new filing made clear. But, at this stage, the two states have stressed the importance of advancing the controversy toward a final resolution by the only court with authority to do that, in a case or cases which lay out the issues that will shape the outcome.

You can read the filing here.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

72 Comments

  • 1. jpmassar  |  December 2, 2014 at 11:15 am

    When I click to the main page I get the mobile version. As others have noted, this kind of bizarro stuff has been happening on and off, and seemingly at random.

  • 2. Scottie Thomaston  |  December 2, 2014 at 11:17 am

    We're trying to figure out what's going on at the moment. I'm not seeing what others are so tech is looking into it.

  • 3. RnL2008  |  December 2, 2014 at 11:21 am

    It's not consistent Scottie……right now, I'm seeing the normal format, but at times the mobile format shows up and it is never the same.

  • 4. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 2, 2014 at 11:53 am

    WIGGLE?

  • 5. davepCA  |  December 2, 2014 at 11:59 am

    I must admit I'm a bit baffled by these states taking steps to try to get a ruling from SCOTUS, and especially seeking to get a ruling quickly. It would seem to me that their chances of getting a SCOTUS ruling in their favor are slim, and if anything would increase their chances it would be to delay a SCOTUS decision as long as possible in hopes that one of the judges likely to favor ME would no longer be on the bench.

    So do they really think they have a better than 50/50 chance with the current court?
    Do they not think this, but just want this over and done with?
    Is this something as simple as these particular lawyers wanting their particular case reviewed by SCOTUS just so they can stay involved in the process longer?

  • 6. Zack12  |  December 2, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    I think many simply want it over and done with so this won't be a political head ache for them anymore.

  • 7. SethInMaryland  |  December 2, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    10th Circuit denies #Kansas request for initial en banc hearing in marriage case appeal

  • 8. RnL2008  |  December 2, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    I agree with ya…..most know that they will probably lose, but to them, this is a delay……I seriously doubt SCOTUS will grant a stay to South Carolina though!!!

  • 9. RnL2008  |  December 2, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    Always……thanks for making me smile….I needed it:-)

  • 10. Eric  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    Scottie, ask the tech guys to look at the caching plug-in, if the site is using one. It is usually the culprit for serving up mobile versions, instead of the desktop version, of WordPress.

  • 11. franklinsewell  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    EOTers … SCOTUSBlog says that the Michigan Case, DeBoer v Snyder, has been listed for the January 9 conference of the justices: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-we

  • 12. davepCA  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Excellent. Here we go……..

  • 13. Eric  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    It's so the politicians can go back to their anti-gay constituents and say that they tried.

    Most of the anti-gay are too idealistic to believe that they will lose with SCOTUS and are not vindictive, nor strategic enough to delay to prolong the process in the hope of more favorable conditions. After all, if these people were rational, they wouldn't be using superstition as their justification.

  • 14. Jen_in_MI  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    I'm logged in using my iPhone and the mobile version will NOT come up for me! WEIRD.

  • 15. Jen_in_MI  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:17 pm

    Good! Thanks for the update. I certainly hope this case is the one…

  • 16. guitaristbl  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    Excellent news ! I do how they grant it immediately without any relists etc, so that no room is left for the 5th to rule in a 7th circ way – less than 10 days after the hearing. I fear that if we get a unanimously hostile panel in the 4th that's what they might try to do.

  • 17. DeadHead  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    It happens frequently on my end, using a desktop with Firefox browser. I'm getting the mobile version more frequently than before. Toggling the off/on button does not help at all. I also get the same results with Chrome & IE browsers and have the same problem when using my husband's laptop. On our Samsung tablet I get the mobile version.

  • 18. Zack12  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    That is what I'm hoping for as well.
    We have our split, no need to wait for the 5th and 8th circuit to issue the anti-gay rulings we know they'll issue.

  • 19. davepCA  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Pyramid scheme spam post above has been reported.

  • 20. nicolas1446  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    Well the ratio at the 5th circuit is 2-1 republican which means chances are there will be at least one democrat appointee on the panel. If there is, I think he or she would drag out a quick anti equality decision by taking forever writing a dissent.

  • 21. nicolas1446  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    I wish it would have made the December conference because now it's waiting for 41 days before finding out whether SCOTUS will take a case this term. I wish they could just tell us now so I could relax.

  • 22. Zack12  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    That is what I'm hoping for.
    Having looked up the history of the judges on the 5th circuit, the only judge I see ruling in our favor on the Republican side is Edward Prado.
    Beyond that, we have no shot.

  • 23. A_Jayne  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Clicking on the case link at SCOTUSblog, the report shows DeBoer is
    "Linked with:
    Tanco v. Haslam
    Obergefell v. Hodges
    Bourke v. Beshear "

    Does that mean they will review them all at that time? If not, someone please explain what it does mean (other than the obvious link of subject matter…)

  • 24. Zack12  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    I believe that is exactly what it means.
    I will say DeBoer is the one we want.
    As far as I'm concerned, a "victory" in which only the out of state part of these bans is struck down is no victory at all.

  • 25. franklinsewell  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    I believe it is just the obvious – a way for SCOTUSblog viewers to see all the cases from the 6th circuit.

  • 26. A_Jayne  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    I use a Mac desktop. When the mobile format comes up, and I turn it OFF, my screen tells me the system cannot connect to the server…

  • 27. A_Jayne  |  December 2, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    Thank you. I didn't think to check there.

  • 28. nicolas1446  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    I am not very familiar with that judge. Why do you think he might rule in favor of marriage equality despite being a Bush appointee?

  • 29. DaveM_OH  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    Actually, it does…
    See the "Vide 14-556, 14-562, 14-574" remark at the top? It means, for the Justices, that these are similar cases.

  • 30. A_Jayne  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    We definitely want DeBoer to be heard – for many reasons:

    The trial record
    The (sound and well-written) decision by a Reagan appointee
    Judge Friedman's dismissal of all (IMHO) BS presented as "evidence" by the state
    The scope of the decision
    And others, I'm sure…

  • 31. DACiowan  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    The Nebraska plaintiffs have filed for a preliminary injunction (Scribd).

  • 32. sfbob  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    I've had that happen as well. Today things are behaving for me…so far.

  • 33. sfbob  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    That is really strange. I generally don't like mobile versions of sites; given the choice, when I'm on my phone I'll switch to the standard version.

  • 34. ebohlman  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    It's almost certainly some sort of caching problem; the last time I got the mobile version on my desktop, doing an ordinary reload kept it but a cache-clearing (Control-F5) reload got me to the desktop version.

  • 35. JayJonson  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    I think their reasons are complicated. Some of them do think that they will prevail at SCOTUS. Others realize that if there are only a handful of states that continue to discriminate against gay people, they will become a sitting target for boycotts and other economic action. Louisiana particularly falls into that category. In most of these states, the political process is dysfunctional, hence the only way out of their dilemma is action from SCOTUS. In that sense, they would prefer an adverse (in their perspective) ruling than no ruling at all.

  • 36. JayJonson  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    I would not be surprised if SCOTUS granted cert to all four. DeBoer has the trial record, but the others also raise interesting questions.

  • 37. hopalongcassidy  |  December 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    I believe you've nailed it down, that worked for me too. I was thinking it was some strange Java behavior because I tweaked those settings and it cleared up…but just temporarily. Hey as long as there's a workaround, it's all good. 😀

  • 38. Zack12  |  December 2, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    If they rule in our favor on all of them, I'll be fine with that.
    If they punt on the bans themselves, I will consider it a loss.
    A poster at another blog brought up the point that where he is at in Texas, it is a 600 mile drive to New Mexico to get a license.
    That is the reality many same sex couples face, one that will hopefully end in June.

  • 39. ebohlman  |  December 2, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Unfortunately, I spoke too soon; I had subsequent cases of cache-clearing reloads bringing up the mobile page and then cache-preserving reloads showing the desktop page.

  • 40. ebohlman  |  December 2, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    My worst nightmare is a 7-2 favorable ruling–on Obergefell!

    That would let Alito and Roberts keep their legacies superficially clean without actually furthering equality in any meaningful sense..

  • 41. Zack12  |  December 2, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    I feel the same way.
    I want all or nothing.

  • 42. ebohlman  |  December 2, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    Yesterday morning there was an anti-gay protest outside the Federal courthouse in Jackson, MS. Before reading the article, guess how many people showed up.

  • 43. A_Jayne  |  December 2, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    25?

    Wow, was I ever wrong!

  • 44. A_Jayne  |  December 2, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Most of the comments point to another interesting fact about the protesters…

  • 45. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 2, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Off topic:

    NBC News is reporting that the DC Council has banned 'conversion therapy' for people under 18. This makes DC the third jurisdiction in the US (after California and New Jersey) to ban 'conversion therapy' for minors.
    ( http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/d-c-moves-ban… )

  • 46. David_Midvale_UT  |  December 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Guffaw

  • 47. yyyAllenyyy  |  December 2, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    Would you mind elaborating on that? Thanks.

  • 48. jpmassar  |  December 2, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    Nebraska:

    A federal judge is being asked to immediately allow same-sex marriages to take place in Nebraska and be recognized by the state by ordering a temporary injunction against the state's ban on gay marriage.

    The ACLU of Nebraska requested the injunction on behalf of seven couples named in a lawsuit challenging the ban in U.S. District Court in Omaha.

    The injunction would effectively stop enforcement of the ban until the courts make a final decision.

    "We are seeking a preliminary junction because the couples in our case just cannot wait any longer," said Amy Miller, legal director for the state ACLU. "Some of the plaintiffs have difficult times ahead, and they need the safety and security that only marriage can provide. We hope the court will act swiftly so our clients and their families can prepare for their futures."

    Those plaintiffs include Susan and Sally Waters, who are legally married in California. The state of Nebraska doesn't recognize their marriage because of the ban, which voters added to the state Constitution in 2001.

    Sally Waters, 58, has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, and the state's ban means her wife is likely to have a higher tax burden after Sally's death than she would otherwise.

    http://beatricedailysun.com/news/local/state-and-

  • 49. sfbob  |  December 2, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    Obergefell dealt only with recognition of marriages performed in other states. A Supreme Court decision based on that decision would not overturn any remaining state laws and constitutional amendments that prevented gay men and lesbians from getting married in their home state. It would surely lead to further litigation because those states that didn't have to actually perform marriages would continue to feel entitled to discriminate against gay and lesbian married couples wherever they thought they could get away with it, for example by denying second-parent adoptions or giving couples married in other states grief when they file their state income taxes jointly. Any situation where the non-biological child of a gay or lesbian parent was left in sole custody of that child would have to bring a suit to have their custody rights recognized, a surviving spouse might find himself rendered temporarily homeless, be unable to obtain Social Security survivor benefits…the list would go on and on.

  • 50. sfbob  |  December 2, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    I didn't see any comments. Or is that the point? :)

  • 51. A_Jayne  |  December 2, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    You have to click on the little conversation bubble/cloud thing at the top of the article. It will open the comment screen on the left.

    Edit for correction – the bubble cloud is in the left column on the screen – just now it showed there are 18 comments…

  • 52. guitaristbl  |  December 2, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    I would add judge Jolly to that tbh. He seems to be more liberal on social issues such as abortion restrictions or teaching of creationism. He has no problem upsetting some conservatives.
    If only we could get a panel with either Higginson/Costa, Jolly and a bigoted republican..We could have a good chance for a 2-1 in favour of ME if it came down to a ruling.

  • 53. guitaristbl  |  December 2, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    AGAIN this went to Bataillon's hands ? That's interesting, unexpected and fortunate ! Bataillon was the first federal judge to strike down a ban on marriage equality and at times when such rulings were met with much more hostility from every part of the political spectrum. I believe he will not hesitate to do so again (on different grounds of course since on the " participation in the political process" thing he is bound by the 8th which overturned his decision..)

  • 54. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 2, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    Yay! You're so welcome!

  • 55. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    Yay!

  • 56. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 2, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    Whoa! Awesomesauce!!

    WIGGLE WIGGLE!

  • 57. MichaelGrabow  |  December 2, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    I didn't expect there to be NO negative comments.

  • 58. RnL2008  |  December 2, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    :-)

  • 59. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 2, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    Right?!

  • 60. ebohlman  |  December 2, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    Even further, Obergefell only dealt with out-of-state recognition for purposes of recording the surviving spouse on death certificates, not general recognition. A favorable ruling on it alone would do next to nothing for couples where neither partner was likely to die in the near future.

  • 61. Eric  |  December 2, 2014 at 8:07 pm

    The problem is when the server caches the mobile versions then serves it to desktop clients.

  • 62. Zack12  |  December 2, 2014 at 10:47 pm

    I want the in state bans struck down as well as the bans on acknowleding marriages performed in other states.
    Only doing the latter and not the former will be a loss in my book.

  • 63. Pat_V  |  December 3, 2014 at 12:32 am

    But have the other 3 cases been fully briefed to SCOTUS yet? If not, what is the deadline for the states' reply briefs?

  • 64. Wolf of Raging Fires  |  December 3, 2014 at 4:51 am

    Yes, both need to go at the same time!

    Honestly, I can't believe we even have to consider it being otherwise :-/

  • 65. StraightDave  |  December 3, 2014 at 6:09 am

    Well, just look at Kansas and what we "even have to consider". If there's even a hint of a loophole, some jackass will try to exploit it in pure bad faith. That's why a total clean sweep is necessary, including heightened scrutiny to head off future gamesmanship.

  • 66. Zack12  |  December 3, 2014 at 6:32 am

    I agree with the scrutiny but I don't think we'll get it.
    I could be surprised though.

  • 67. Marriage Equality Round-U&hellip  |  December 3, 2014 at 7:43 am

    […] USA, Louisiana: The state is urging the US Supreme Court to rule on marriage equality soon. full story […]

  • 68. StraightDave  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:01 am

    I think you'll probably get it for marriage, specifically, via fundamental rights. There's so much supportive jurisprudence around that. But more broadly, as a suspect class…… the court might not consider it necessary to go there yet for this set of cases. I'm sure lawsuits will not all end next June, unfortunately.

  • 69. Zack12  |  December 3, 2014 at 8:20 am

    No, because then there will be ones dealing with "religious freedom" bills, housing discrimination etc.

  • 70. OrvilleKlutz  |  December 3, 2014 at 9:53 am

    So far SCOTUS has ruled in favor of marriage equality either by overturning section 3 of DOMA or denying appeals against marriage equality. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reasoning that the ban on marriage equality is because of "Traditional" values is poor, weak, and discriminatory against the LGBT American citizens. It is unlikely that SCOTUS will decide against marriage equality as it is contrary to their previous decisions, so it will overturn the 6th Circuit's ruling.

  • 71. wes228  |  December 3, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Has there ever been an anti-gay Supreme Court ruling since Bowers v. Hardwick? We've had Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, and United States v. Windsor.

    The only one I can think of that would come remotely close is Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (The BSA is a non-profit organization and so has the right to determine who may or may not be a member), and that one I myself agree with!

  • 72. JayJonson  |  December 3, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    At the time BSA v. Dale was decided, the Boy Scouts was not really a non-profit private institution. It was supported by various government subsidies. The BSA was given all sorts of privileges other private organizations were not given. Unlike the NJ Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Dale, the SCOTUS decision failed to recognize the quasi-public nature of the organization. But the delicious irony is that by so ruling, SCOTUS in effect gave the Boy Scouts rope with which to hang themselves. They have lost a great deal of the public support and sweetheart deal that they used to count upon and in effect badly damaged their brand. Before, the Boy Scouts were a highly respected institution. Now, they are viewed skeptically by most people. Nearly all their sponsors are now churches, especially the Mormons and the Southern Baptists. They have hemorhaged membership. They won the case, but lost the battle. It was the worst thing that happened to them as an organization. I doubt that they will ever recover.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!